On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually > > don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is > > ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind > > of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. > > > There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these > > criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, > > science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as > > fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science > > conventionally has been limited to the "material" (whatever that > > means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle > > actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have > > in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to > > metaphysics. > > > [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, > > as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe > > and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This > > limits more than anything the amount of "sense" we can make out of > > Everything.] > > > However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all > > things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, > > is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes > > that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and > > effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've > > mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. > > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can > do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best > guess as to what's going on.
This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. > Science is just a systematisation of this > process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. > However, it's > all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs > might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I > would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no > reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A > metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an > anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as > well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute > anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some > things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be > unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. > > Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what "absolute meaning" means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
